Historical family marriages created links that expanded the family away from Britain into the far-reaches of Europe. The Vikings and Germans often married for political reasons and travelled into France, Russia, Greece, Italy, and the Balkans. Their descendants then further spread relationships and married into the Mongols, Greeks, and Middle Eastern and African nations it is now difficult to bound the extended family. Alexander the Great carried European links into India as the later Spanish did into South America. However, Britain remains the focus of our family historical interest and their are extensive links throughout the British Isles and there are few Scots, Welsh, or Irish families to whom we have no marital links. Even static families gained international connections by marriage and I have documented many of these family personalites in the accompanying genealogical database. Approximately 25% of the names are direct family members. Britain was invaded by Celts, Romans, Germans, Scandinavians, and Normans and French. The Romans made a major impact on Britian as they exploited the native wealth and imposed Roman discipline and culture.

The Romans made the first documented account of Scotland and the IX Legion found a tribe of Picts they called Caledonians in a land they called Alba.[1] (The Picts called themselves Priteni and apparently may have been Celts who had migrated from, or via, Spain, and inter-married with earlier stone-age people.) There were a lot of Picts: the Romans defeated an army of 30,000, mounted Caledonians c90 AD near Aberdeen in Scotland.[2] The Romans changed Britain by their introduction of culture, sheep, grapes, and discipline; they also built roads and public buildings, established large farms, and drained swamps thus changing the economy. Our relatives met both Caesar in 54 BC and Claudius in 43 AD: first Cassivelaunus, King of the Britons and Catuvellauni; and then his later successor Caratacus. They are both uncles to our Welsh great-grandmother, Princess Nesta, who married Gerald FitzWalter of Windsor, Constable of Pembroke in c1100.

As the Romans left at the end of the fourth century, Teutonic Angles and Saxons (see the later discussion 'The Germans') joined the Picts and Irish in invading Britain and the native Britons were pushed into Cornwall, Wales and Southern Scotland. By the mid-fifth century, Scotland was divided amongst four groups.The blue-painted Picts were in the northeast with southern Scotland divided between Britons and the Anglo-Saxons. The Irish Dal Riadans (members of the Irish Scotti Tribe) established themselves in the Hebrides islands, western Argyll and Kintyre. Scots began to be converted to Christianity by the mid-seventh century, and as the Kingdom of Dalriada prevailed over their neighbours the entire country became known as Scotland.

Because the Romans and their neighbours the Greeks extended their empires into eastern Europe our family links were broadened to include the eastern Mediterranean and Rusia. Middle Eastern families lead to Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Africa; and via Alexander's Macedonian Greeks to India. The Mongolian Ghengis Khan and his grandson Kublai Khan broadened links as their armies moved throughout Asia. I have tried to sketch an outline for a few of these areas to show where at least some family members appeared in history. These and other topics are found under the 'background' drop-down menus. I have divided topics somewhat arbitrarily into sub-menus and some investigation might be helpful: there are six sub-menus under the heading rome. I have also noted our Western debt to Chinese and Indian inventions.


Rome's structure, discpline, and order provided Europe stability for centuries. However, after Rome collapsed under attacks by the Germanic tribes, a period of lawless barbarism replaced central Roman security. This instability lasted until the Franks under Charlemagne re-established order in the ninth century. Europe felt the results of the collapse of Charlemagne's centralised empire during the Viking, Magyar, and Saracen invasions. Pagan Vikings invaded coastal France, Scotland, the Hebrides, Orkney and Shetland Islands, and England before the end of the eighth century. The Viking world was extensive and stretched round the whole of Europe; from Scandinavia to Russia and the Mediterranean, and via Iceland and Greenland to Canada.[3] While the Vikings plundered for gold they also founded the cities of Dublin and Novgorod and settled Sicily, Normandy, and much of England. Viking power was broken by the 1066 Norman invasion but Europe had been changed. Kingdoms based on heredity and marriage (vice election, or aristocratic control) were widely established and under this revived stability the European population grew from 30 million in 1000 to about 44 million in 1150. The Viking Earls of Orkney settled in northern Scotland about 900 AD and carried the name Wilson (also spelt Willison) into Scottish history.[4]

The Vikings weakened central authority, leading to the rise of feudal power, which lasted into the fifteenth century. Feudal authority shared a balance of rights and privileges, notionally held as a hierarchy with the king as liege lord. In fact, feudal barons often seized power forcing their subjects to fight as they were ordered and only gradually, after numerous struggles, surrendered power back to the monarchs. Knights were the principal professional warriors, often selling their services to the highest bidder.[5] Kings were assisted in their assertion of Divine Rights by the collapse of English power in 1066, the French recovery of Normandy from the English in 1204, and the Spanish recovery of Iberia from the Arabs, in 1212 to 1262. The kings claimed Roman-law precedent and carefully played one baronial faction against another, while they advanced their own sovereignty in areas of criminal jurisdiction and mediaeval foreign policy. In parallel with these developments were two other struggles: the popes challenged the kings for the power to appoint bishops and control land, and one of them, Pope Urban II, distracted the nobility with the notion of the Crusades against the infidels in the 'Holy Land'. (The crusades left their own marks on Europe with a rise of nationalism and the development of education and new business technologies and techniques.)

The English King Harold allegedly broke his own and King Edward's promise to have Edward's brother-in-law, Duke William of Normandy, succeed to the English throne. While Edward was still alive, Harold apparently cemented this deal, visiting William in Normandy in 1064, and acknowledging earlier Norman favours.[6] However, Harold claimed the English throne the day Edward died and William then put the Norman invasion of England in motion to recover his promised realm.[7] Our family derives from one of Edward's foreign band, Sir Other FitzOthoere, whose descendants spent 200 years conquering Wales and Ireland, one of whom, Gerald FitzGerald, evidently migrated to Scotland with a small army in 1262.[8] King Harold's brother, Earl Tostig, rebelled against Harold and then fled to gain support from King Malcolm in Scotland. In 1066, Tostig returned with the Norwegian king, Harald Hardrada and a Viking host to York, where King Harold soundly defeated them at the Battle of Stamford Bridge. Sadly for Harold it was at that moment that William finally invaded in the South in Wessex and, landed his 7,000-man army and horses to claim his promise from Edward. The Battle of Hastings was fought on 14 October and resulted in Harold's death and Norman England.

In 1067 the Saxon heir Edgar and many other Saxons fled to Scotland.[9] Being determined to impose their will, the Norman Conquest of Britain led to considerable change in Europe. William the Conqueror planted a 'new forest' in southern England for his own use (to provide state food and timber) and in 1085 he also meticulously recorded the kingdom's entire wealth (people, buildings, animals, mills, etc) to ensure the payment of his taxes.[10] The Saxons referred to this record as the Domesday Book - since it spelled the end of their Saxon way of life. Normans and their supporters like Bruce, Sir Other and de Bolton were given lands and power. (In 1343, William de Bolton received 40 shillings from Edward III for: pro restauro unius somerii sui ...apud Vanes perditi - his horse.[11])

King William's wide division of baronial lands, political uncertainty, and social insecurity led to a growth of feudalism and a pyramidal power structure. This evolved at the same time Christianity was taking root in Europe (driven by the Crusader spirit) and supplanting paganism with new ideals. Surprisingly this was easy in Germany and Scandinavia where the Odin of Norse and Teutonic sagas and epics culminated in Valhalla - a remarkably similar paradise to that promised by Christianity.[12] This led to the easier conversion of the German warrior class to Christianity than the French, and the rapid development of chivalry and knighthood. The French descendants of Clovis had not kept their pagan Gods and Christianity was a much more difficult transition for the French. Chivalry and Christianity melded in the Christian warrior ethic and death became a virtue in the Crusades and the 'God of Battles'.

Our family relates to many European kings through Princess Nesta and her bastard son, Henry FitzHenry, Lord of Norberg-Pebidiog, by King Henry I, Beauclerc. Henry ordered Nesta to marry Gerald FitzWalter, our ancestor. Maurice FitzGerald, Justiciar of Ireland also married one of Henry's descendants, Lady Emmeline Longespee.

Gerald, FitzGerald, I Baron of Kintail was a direct descendant and when he married Lady Margaret Stewart in 1265, our lineal connection to European nobility was cemented. William the Conqueror is thus a grandfather, so are Alfred the Great, Charlemagne, and Constantine, (who adopted Christianity and moved the Roman capital to Constantinople). Kings Raedwald of East Anglia, and Robert the Bruce of Scots are uncles. King Henry VIII, Queen Victoria of England; and both the Spanish Queen Isabella and her husband King Ferdinand; as well as King Phillipe III of France are all cousins.

The growth of the feudal society led to both a concentration of power in kings as ultimate authorities and bloody struggles amongst European kingdoms. However, this contradicted the Church of Rome's intention to focus power on the Popes. In response to an appeal for aid against the Turks from the Christian Emperor Alexius Comnenos in 1095 at Constantinople, Pope Urban II decided to confront the power issue and identified an outside enemy. This ploy would consolidate his temporal and spiritual power to appoint kings in God's name.


Sultan Saladin c1180


The pope accused the Turkish Muslims of horrible atrocities against Christians and the Byzantine Empire. To confront these 'wicked ruthless murderers' (most of whom were actually quite innocent) he called for a holy war 'to take back the Holy places from the infidels'. The Pope promised spiritual remission from sins for all those who 'took the cross' and free temporal power and lands - seized from the 'Saracens' - for dispossessed second sons.[13] Urban described the Infidels as murderers; but in fact the Turks and Arabs had been quite tolerant of Christians and Jews. (Showing their loyalty, some of the so-called exploited Christians and Jews also fought the Crusaders!)

Salah ad-Din was a 12th century Kurdish Muslim warrior-leader from Tikrit, Iraq, who founded the Ayyubid dynasty of Egypt, Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Mecca Hejaz and Diyar Bakr. He was also renowned in both the Christian and Muslim worlds for his leadership and military prowess tempered by his chivalry and merciful nature, during his struggle against the Crusaders. Saladin (as he is known in Europe) was sent to Damascus to finish his education. After an initial military education and the defeat of the Fatimid caliphate of Egypt Saladin succeeded as vizier and then caliph and finally sultan in 1174. As sultan, Saladin had the authority to command the military, bring smaller muslim states under his control, restore Egypt to Sunnism, and then finally to confront the crusaders.**

In July of 1187, Saladin invaded the Kingdom of Jerusalem. On July 4, 1187 at the Battle of Hattin he faced the combined forces of Guy of Lusignan, King consort of Jerusalem, and Raymond III of Tripoli. Outsmarted at the height of summer, the exhausted and thirst-crazed Crusader army was largely annihilated in what was a major disaster for the Crusaders and a turning point in the history of the Crusades. Saladin captured Reynald de Chatillon and personally cut off his head. Guy of Lusignan was also captured but as a king his life was spared. Saladin recaptured Jerusalem on October 2, 1187, after 88 years of Crusader rule. King Richard of England once praised Saladin as a great prince, saying that he was without doubt the greatest and most powerful leader in the Islamic world.[13A]


Kraak des Chevaliers held 1,500 knights, horses, water and food


Urban II ordered the call to Crusade based on the concept of penance and an assumption of Christ as a warrior king to appeal to the European warrior leaders.[14] Attacks against Christian pilgrims had been increasing since the arrival of the Seljuk Turks from the East and the Byzantine bulwark of Christianity was in serious trouble. Moreover, in the eleventh century the pope had a major social problem of Europeans killing other Europeans. At least Jerusalem was remote territory where hotheaded Europeans could 'let off some steam', and Jerusalem also offered the potential for new conquest.

Peter the Hermit led an unarmed pilgrimage of poor Europeans who were massacred by the Seljuks in 1097. In July 1099, Godefried de Bouillon led the First Crusade to the capture of Jerusalem.. The Crusades drove development of Western civilisation by uniting the Europeans in fundamental Christianity. If somewhat united in faith, the leadership was flawed by conflicting aims and parochial greed: The Turks and Arabs were more disunited and Crusaders sometimes joined forces with Muslim factions against some Emir, or tribe. God Himself enlisted the Crusaders 'Deus le volt' as they saw it, which perhaps explains their passions. Some of the Crusades were akin to hysterical pilgrimages and they took place in an era when possessions were measured by locks, chairs were luxuries, and most men slept on straw. The fork had yet to be invented, bowls were shared and life was very primitive. Mediaeval man could converse intelligently with us, but women were regarded as chattel. In 1588, Spain would launch a later Crusade against England, and the Crusades also incited retaliatory Muslim Jihads (Holy wars).

While the kings and barons struggled with each other over the larger affairs of state, in the absence of local war there was peace in the villages. Many men were absent on Crusade, but a new middle class of merchants was developing to feed the demand for crusader support. Cities and towns exploded in England, France, and Germany as peasants cut down the primal forests and the Spanish began to expel the Arabs. Growth naturally led to increased wealth and opportunity as Europeans developed trade fairs and traded with each other. In turn, that re-opened the Mediterranean from the grip of Arab pirates and in the sixteenth century the New World injected new wealth into Europe. Since the Church had decreed authority to take land from Infidels, so be it! Spain, Portugal, France, and the Netherlands vied with England for control of critical world trading routes and the exported gold. Jamestown in America received a cargo of twenty Africans which was sold there as early as 1619.[15] The development of Europe led to a Thirty Year War, which ended with the 1648 Peace of Westphalia and the concept of sovereign states.[16] That marked the rise of modern European states over the next 150 years of wars.

Much new European wealth became English, perhaps because of England's island status and her navy. As wars (apart from their Civil War) were outside England this lent stability for a distant industrial revolution. Spurred by access to Arab learning gained though the Crusaders, this period began a recovery from the Dark Ages and men began to re-learn forgotten ideas about mathematics and sciences. Such thinking and new technologies changed social behaviour and the Scots were almost civilised although English hegemonic interests drove an island cycle of war. Still, education guaranteed that the end of feudalism was in sight even if it took several hundred more years. But with the decline of Spain, the main event became the struggle for empire between Britain and France. A later migration of disenfranchised Scots poured into the colonies, the army, or to foreign shores.

Hypothetically, the Scots were still Celts, unconquered by another people. There had, of course, been attempts by the Romans, Danes, English, and Vikings, and settlements by the Normans and Saxons. The Irish Scots and Picts alike had developed a superior art form depicted in the Book of Kells, but had lived outside Roman and Norman influences.

By the seventeenth century, the Clan Chief, or Laird, had accepted social responsibility for his people and they were often considered as (and treated like) his children.[17] The clan was a patriarchal society, focused on fighting without regard for wealth as such. When the chief called his clan gathered around him they had no need to break for the harvest as they lived primarily off the land and their Angus longhorn cattle. The chief provided protection to his clan from his fortified castle and they provided support as landless warrior tenants to fight his battles.[18] But, feudalism as a social order was dead or dying throughout Europe, and England as the emerging world power was in no mood to trifle with truculent Scottish tribalism. The Scots had to learn how to adapt to the changes of the industrial revolution.

Scots and English had fought each other as Picts and Angles and King Robert the Bruce's 1314 defeat of the superior English forces of King Edward II at Bannockburn provided only a pause. The English adapted their tactics and by 1346 fought dismounted, unless protected by archers (later armed with the offensive long bow), to avoid surprise.[19]  The Tudors felt the need for an island base (and thus Henry VIII built a navy) to secure their new perceptions of monarchy and religion, and would not be deterred from gaining control. The Scots naturally aligned themselves with England's enemies (the French and Spanish) until their final defeat at Culloden in 1746.


Highland Scots, and Mackenzies in particular, suffered a big loss after Culloden. The tribal Scots were ineffective against George III's English regiments, which under his son, the Duke of Cumberland, hunted the Scots down with 'bayonet and noose' and outlawed the possession of weapons, the tartan, their Scots languge, and kilt. Ordinary, Scots had little choice but to join their former enemy's army since many of their chiefs threw them off the land. From the Isle of Skye alone, 10,789 Scots joined the British army between 1793 and 1837. Scots became the skirmishers of the British army; their independence and hunting skills equating to the abilities of the Cossacks in other wars.[20]

Scots independence itself was doomed. The English economy was vastly larger and could always support a military conquest - given the need. Mackenzies provided a reason and need for English action in the 17th century. They declared they would not follow "...anie bot their native superior.[21]

More Scots left to fight as British soldiers


The European rediscovery of America and the subsequent rush to colonisation was made against a background of the titanic struggle for global empire. Spain, then Portugal, The Netherlands, France, Russia, and Britain invested heavily to create economic colonial machines to feed their increasing lust for wealth. The sixteenth to nineteenth centuries were a period of enormous creativity in every field, but the English realised that their island economy was dependent upon the control of the sea, which would give them greater key access to resources.[22]

It was deliberate policy to send the British navy abroad with both colonists and administrators (like Admiral Sir Peter Warren, and Sir William Johnson), to ease economic difficulties at home while gambling on future colonial returns. Primary British colonies were in North America, the Caribbean, then India, South Africa, and of course Australia. In 1749, to protect New England, Lord Halifax created a new settlement and naval base (called Halifax) at Chebucto harbour in Nova Scotia. It is notable that 1759 was the British 'year of victories' in West Africa, India, North America and the West Indies (Caribbean) as they soundly defeated the French in all these quarters.[23]

Wolfe died a hero at Québec on 13 September 1759 and, as LaPierre points out in 1759, it was neither a British nor French moment, but much more a Canadian. The Boultons needed no declarations, they moved to the colonies to make money. Victory established Britain as a superpower with enormous wealth and overwhelming confidence. However, over-confidence lost the American colonies in 1776, despite men like Johnson, Claus and Dickson, and the struggle with a vengeful France was rejoined.

Churchill notes that the colonies had more than one-quarter million men able to bear arms, but that Washington never had more than 25,000.[24] British North America included vast unexplored territories occupied by the Hudson Bay Company, beaver, buffaloes, Métis, and Spain. The American Revolution with French collaboration, led to a French Revolution and Napoleon.

Americans needed recognition of their independence while Britain felt her control of the seas threatened by American trade with the French; thus the War of 1812 began. Again, this was an Imperial war and colonial Canadians were most uncertain of how they differed from Americans and why they should support the King.

Pierre Berton notes ironically that in the final 1814 Treaty of Ghent there was no mention of the original American cause for war, as the British had already given up 'impressing' American sailors.[25] It was during this period that more family members arrived in the future Canada as Loyalist settlers and pioneers.


Patriotic Victorian Fervour


The 1812 War was a huge success: everybody won - except the Indians (and the French who were not officially involved). America got respect from Britain, Britain locked up Napoleon, both America and Britian forgot the original issue, and the Canadians gained a country. Both warring states decided they did not want Canada anyway. British colonial affairs were focused on ensuring that Imperial concerns would be supported through future independence. The best way to achieve that was by sending Britons to live in the colonies. In India, Africa and across various places in Asia the British established an Empire and wealth.

Patriotic noises were made whenever British national interest was threatened. The Brockville militia case concerned the American Civil War, the perceived slight caused by a naval incident. The same concerns were felt during the Irish Fenian raids into Canada. (The Irish in America felt they could get English attention by killing Canadians.) With 45,000 Canadians serving in the American Civil War loyalties were easily misunderstood.

The line 'That flag that braved a thousand years the battle and the breeze' was nonsense, that flag was barely 100 old, but Victorian sentiment had already begun to shape such appeals. Admiral Nelson's call 'England expects every man to do his duty' was a direct challenge to Colonial bravery and produced the expected necessary volunteers.

These appeals also worked for General, Lord Wolseley. He remembered the French Canadian voyageurs and took 386 voyageurs to move the British army up the Nile to Khartoum in the Sudan to rescue Major General CG (Chinese) Gordon. Canada later produced additional men for the Boer War when a total of 8,372 Canadians were raised to 'defend' the Empire. (The British Empire was thus expanded to encompass much of the world.)

The 1867 British decision, recorded as the British North America Act, created the Dominion of Canada incorporating Upper and Lower Canada, the Atlantic colonies and the Northwest. This peaceful confederation is rare in world history. There were different views and the 1837 rebellions in both Upper and Lower Canada and the Riel rebellions (1869 and 1884) underscored the mood for reform. History and British Imperial overstretch had resulted in a French nation within Canada. The lawlessness of the American Wild West led to the 1873 establishment of the forerunner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police as a mobile federal peace force. Louis Riel's Métis rebellions led to the 1874 creation of Manitoba and the Canadian Prime Minister's, Sir John MacDonald, decision to authorise the construction of continental railways. That would keep the Americans from swallowing Canada immediately. The 1867 Dominion sovereignty for Canada was limited to internal policy, Britain reserved authority for defence and foreign relations. Canadians wanted the stability and protection of the monarchy, but without being subordinated to Imperial self-interests.


The Prince of Wales in Toronto

The landau carriage and raised hats showed continuing support for the British Empire.


The senior Dominions (Australia, Canada, the Irish Free State, New Zealand and South Africa) pushed to abandon Empire after Queen Victoria died. Their own contributions made to World War I (WWI) gave this impetus while Britain was no longer able to dictate terms.[26] They sought full sovereignty and gained it in 1926 and embodied it in the Statute of Westminster in 1931.[27] The decolonisation in 1949 of India created a model for the post WWII process for other colonies and their entry into the democratic British Commonwealth of Nations. Almost 50 countries still belong to this forum (in 2000) in which both local and collective concerns and problems are discussed and the figment of Imperial grandeur allows the British residual world influence and power.[28]

Canadian contributions are often forgotton by British authors as Canadians became subsumed by the label British and swept into the credit line of 'Great Britian'. This led to a drive for sovereignty and a feeling that our American cousins might have been right to seek independence.

The British Empire now survives as the British Commonwealth and many Commonwealth Members, including Canada, consider the British monarch, Queen Elizabeth II, as their own Head of State. The British Empire had many fine attributes, but did not survive the Second World War (WW II).


Canadians have not always received their just acknowledgement or praises earned. Like everybody else, Canadians have to deal with myths and faulty information in order to understand their own place in the world. Winston Churchill quite properly credited Britain with many WW II successes, but sometimes he really meant the British Empire, which he then defined as including 'The Colonies'. A more balanced view might give more credit to India, Australia, Canada, and other now 'Commonwealth' nations. Montgomery's 8th Army Group included the 1st Canadian Army and Canadians saw a lot of action opening up Belgium and the Netherlands. Britain did lead Allied efforts and deserves unreserved credit. However, British criticism of the 1944 Canadian Normandy performance at Caen might have been more balanced had it included consideration of the German and Allied tanks.

The Canadians were inexperienced, but that must have been mitigated by the long pre-Normandy training. It might also be recalled that Caen had been a British objective for D Day itself and that British troops did not suffer from want of experience. Both the Canadian 3rd Infantry Division and the neighbouring British 3rd Infantry Division ran into the German 21st Panzer Division on D Day, yet the Canadian 3rd Infantry Division alone fully achieved its D Day objectives.


Canadians at Caen


At Caen, the German Panzer Lehr Division had 5 x Tiger IIs, 3 x Tiger Is, 229 x Panzer IVs/Panthers (all late models): the 12th SS (HJ) Division had 104 x Panzer IVs (H/J), and 81 x Panthers. (There were a greater number of Tiger IIs in the later Falaise Pocket Battle.) 21st Panzer Division also fought at Caen, but had lost nearly all its Panzer IIIs and IVs by then. Although the Eighth Army had more tanks (c2,650), the German defenders outperformed the Allies in tanks killed (413 Allied tanks vice 109 German). Operational plans, performance, and manoeuver apart, since the primary Allied tank at Caen was the US army Sherman (M4A1): this was a technology-performance struggle.

The Sherman had 50 mm of frontal armour and a 75 mm main gun; while the Panzer IV (H&Js) had 80 mm of frontal armour, the Panthers had 100 mm of frontal armour; and the Tiger IIs had 180 mm of frontal armour. American assessments were that the Sherman was quite ineffective against the Panther and Tiger frontal armour. This last fact pushed unit commanders into dynamic ambush tactics to gain a side shot. (An un-protected, temporarily vulnerable, Sherman ammunition storage arrangement made the Sherman particularly vulnerable to fire.) Even the Tiger II's side armour was an impenetrable 80 mm.

Sadly, not only were many German tanks invulnerable to a 75 mm, frontal hit, the Panther had a 100 mm main gun and the Tigers had the famous 88 mm. These German weapons had a higher muzzle-velocity and consequent lower trajectory and longer range than the Sherman (M4A1). The Germans could kill Allied targets at a stand-off range, while remaining untouched. The conclusion is that German tanks out-performed the Allied tanks in Normandy. (German tanks suffered from Allied manufacturing disruptions and had a much higher unserviceable rate, which aided later Allied commanders.) It should be noted that dynamic battles are fought with the weapons at hand and that weapons development is a continuous process. The German advantage noted here later disappeared; but at Caen that technological advantage outweighed any issues of national performance.[29] That performance assessment is only feasible with a large volume of data and thus this collection at this site.

Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, South Africans Indians, and all the other members of the former Empire might now reclaim our own identites.


1             Claudius invaded Britannia in 43 AD with four legions and additional auxiliaries, settling Briton as a Roman province.

2             Lloyd and Jenny Laing, The Picts and the Scots, p. 8, 11. Scots were later Pict allies.

3             Else Roesdahl, The Vikings, pp. 210-220 and 295-296. York derives from the Norse 'jordvic'.

4             Provided by Patricia Patterson, who noted that the Wilsons settled in Berwick in SE Scotland.

5             The word knight derives from knecht, the 'Old High German' for servant or slave. See Robinson Dungeon, Fire and Sword, pp. 32-33, for a discussion of the knight's dependence on his horse and his feudal role. See also Claiborne The Roots of English, pp. 25-27, for the etymological roots and evolution of our language. English has borrowed sheep, ox, field and work, from the Anglo-Saxons, sky and skirt, from the Norse, and many from the French - including boeuf, migrating to the Norman beeve, or beef and our modern cow.

6             R Allen Brown, The Normans, pp. 63-77.

7             The evidence is slim, being supported by the Norman Bayeau Tapestry but absent in the more complete, but understandably biased, Saxon Chronicles.

8             Sir E Mackenzie Mackenzie, The Genealogy of the Stem of the Family of Mackenzie, p. 8.

9             Saxon Chronicles, pp. 259 and 266-269.

10             Kenneth Cameron, English Place Names, p. 64, notes the change of spelling introduced by the Normans in the Domesday Book. This was a national census and tax stocktaking ordered by William.

11             Andrew Ayton, Knights and Warhorses, p. 80.

12             Zoé Oldenbourg, The Crusades, pp. 30-33. Oester is a Nordic word for the Spring solstice.

13             Robinson op. cit., pp. 9-10, illustrates the Crusaders abysmal ignorance and the success of the Pope's propaganda, by providing the origin of the term Saracen. Nomadic Seljuk Turks on the Syrian border had committed atrocities against the Byzantine Greeks. The Greeks called the Turks Sarakenos. The Greek word became Saracenus in Latin and was misinterpreted as all Muslims (Turks, Arabs, Kurds, Persians and Egyptians - and many Christians and Jews). Popular usage migrated the spelling to Saracen(s). As Robinson further notes, all Crusaders were similarly termed Franj by the Turks as a presumption, based on the French majority, that all Europeans were French. Franj remains the Arabic for 'European' today.

13A          See Wikipedia article 'Saladin' at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saladin.

14             Zoé Oldenbourg, The Crusades, pp. 46.

15             Warren Billings, Jamestown, p. 77.

16             Luard, Evan, International Society, New Amsterdam Books, New York, 1990.

17             A Laird owned land, or wealth, and the term indicated something like the English term Governor. The term implies lord, with subtle variations. The Laird was usually the Scottish Clan Chief, but perhaps also a local wealthy aristocrat.

18             John Prebble, The Highland Clearances, pp. 12-18.

19             Andrew Ayton's Knights and Warhorses, pp. 20-21.

20             John Keegan, A History of Warfare, p.5.

21             Provided by Janet Harding in a Clan Mackenzie letter by the Munros in December 1993. A proud people, with little appreciation of what they might be getting into.

22             Paul Kennedy, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, pp. 154-155. On p. 151, Kennedy notes that Britain was responsible for 'two-thirds of Europe's industrial growth of output', between 1760 and 1830.

23             Jock Haswell, The Battle For Empire, pp., 248-268.

24             Sir Winston Churchill, A History of The English-Speaking Peoples, vol. 3, p. 185.

25             Pierre Berton, Flames Across the Border, p. 529.

26             George Stanley Canada's Soldiers, p. 313 provides the official figures from Canada's population of about 7 1/2 million. There were 628,462 men enrolled of whom 424,589 went overseas and 60,661 died - exclusive of the then separate Newfoundlanders. This was a stupendous loss for a small, young country and the 1917 victory at Vimy Ridge brought Canadians a sense of pride and maturity.

27             Christopher Bayly, Atlas of the British Empire, p. 246.

28             Ibid.

29            For an overview of the operational plans see either http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Goodwood#Background, or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Totalize. For details see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Panzer_Lehr_Division#The_Caen_Battles, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Goodwood, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panther_tank, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_IV, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_tank.

home · introduction · genealogy · background · maps · bibliography · search · contact